New Property in International Law is a story of how international law constantly falls short when it comes to property regulation because its stakeholders have consistently failed to define what property is. Until now, property in international law has been an enigma. We are told that international law possesses sufficient content to regulate property, we are shown provisions in international instruments addressing property rights, and we bear witness to the resolution of property disputes in accordance with international law. Yet, when we are asked what the defining attributes of property in international law are, we draw a collective blank. The absence of reformist agitation from the international community towards an international law that brazenly regulates what it cannot or will not even define represents the turning of a collective blind eye to a critical knowledge gap. In the same way that driving a car with closed eyes is a possibly fatal accident in the making, driving the content of international law on property regulation without discerning the object of regulation is a possibly fatal anomaly in the laborious, and supposedly progressive, enterprise of legal development. Duly defined, newer forms of property push international law to a regulatory breaking point. When treaties as stalwart sources of international law prescribe obligations without properly identifying the object and penalizing the violators of those obligations, regulatory regimes built on treaties—such as the ones currently applicable to cultural, common, and contingent property—resemble a mirage. They offer victims shimmering hope and reprieve from a distance but vanish when the victim gets close enough to contemplate and formulate redress for the wrong suffered.